Search

Background: Progress in achieving maternal health goals and the rates of reductions in deaths from individual conditions have varied over time and across countries. Assessing whether research priorities in maternal health align with the main causes of mortality, and those factors responsible for inequitable health outcomes, such as health system performance, may help direct future research. The study thus investigated whether the research done in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) matched the principal causes of maternal deaths in these settings.Methods: Systematic mapping was done of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012. Articles were included on health systems strengthening, health promotion; and on five tracer conditions (haemorrhage, hypertension, malaria, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs)). Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts in duplicate, data were extracted from 2292 full-text publications.Results: Over time, the number of publications rose several-fold, especially in 2004-2007, and the range of methods used broadened considerably. More than half the studies were done in sub-Saharan Africa (55.4 %), mostly addressing HIV and malaria. This region had low numbers of publications per hypertension and haemorrhage deaths, though South Asia had even fewer. The proportion of studies set in East Asia Pacific dropped steadily over the period, and in Latin America from 2008 to 2012. By 2008-2012, 39.1 % of articles included health systems components and 30.2 % health promotion. Only 5.4 % of studies assessed maternal STI interventions, diminishing with time. More than a third of haemorrhage research included health systems or health promotion components, double that of HIV research.Conclusion: Several mismatches were noted between research publications, and the burden and causes of maternal deaths. This is especially true for South Asia; haemorrhage and hypertension in sub-Saharan Africa; and for STIs worldwide. The large rise in research outputs and range of methods employed indicates a major expansion in the number of researchers and their skills. This bodes well for maternal health if variations in research priorities across settings and topics are corrected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Mapping studies describe a broad body of literature, and differ from classical systematic reviews, which assess more narrowly-defined questions and evaluate the quality of the studies included in the review. While the steps involved in mapping studies have been described previously, a detailed qualitative account of the methodology could inform the design of future mapping studies. Objectives: Describe the perspectives of a large research team on the methods used and collaborative experiences in a study that mapped the literature published on maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (2292 full text articles included, after screening 35,048 titles and abstracts in duplicate). Methods: Fifteen members of the mapping team, drawn from eight countries, provided their experiences and perspectives of the study in response to a list of questions and probes. The responses were collated and analysed thematically following a grounded theory approach. Results: The objectives of the mapping evolved over time, posing difficulties in ensuring a uniform understanding of the purpose of the mapping among the team members. Ambiguity of some study variables and modifications in data extraction codes were the main threats to the quality of data extraction. The desire for obtaining detailed information on a few topics needed to be weighed against the benefits of collecting more superficial data on a wider range of topics. Team members acquired skills in systematic review methodology and software, and a broad knowledge of maternal health literature. Participation in analysis and dissemination was lower than during the screening of articles for eligibility and data coding. Though all respondents believed the workload involved was high, study outputs were viewed as novel and important contributions to evidence. Overall, most believed there was a favourable balance between the amount of work done and the project's outputs.Conclusions: A large mapping of literature is feasible with a committed team aiming to build their research capacity, and with a limited, simplified set of data extraction codes. In the team's view, the balance between the time spent on the review, and the outputs and skills acquired was favourable. Assessments of the value of a mapping need, however, to take into account the limitations inherent in such exercises, especially the exclusion of grey literature and of assessments of the quality of the studies identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) are under-represented in scientific literature. Mapping of authorship of articles can provide an assessment of data ownership and research capacity in LMICs over time and identify variations between different settings.Methods: Systematic mapping of maternal health interventional research in LMICs from 2000 to 2012, comparing country of study and of affiliation of first authors. Studies on health systems or promotion; community-based activities; and haemorrhage, hypertension, HIV/STIs and malaria were included. Following review of 35,078 titles and abstracts, 2292 full-text publications were included. Data ownership was measured by the proportion of articles with an LMIC lead author (author affiliated with an LMIC institution).Results: The total number of papers led by an LMIC author rose from 45.0/year in 2000-2003 to 98.0/year in 2004-2007, but increased only slightly thereafter to 113.1/year in 2008-2012. In the same periods, the proportion of papers led by a local author was 58.4 %, 60.8 % and 60.1 %, respectively. Data ownership varies markedly between countries. A quarter of countries led more than 75 % of their research; while in 10 countries, under 25 % of publications had a local first author. Researchers at LMIC institutions led 56.6 % (1297) of all papers, but only 26.8 % of systematic reviews (65/243), 29.9 % of modelling studies (44/147), and 33.2 % of articles in journals with an Impact Factor ≥5 (61/184). Sub-Saharan Africa authors led 54.2 % (538/993) of studies in the region, while 73.4 % did in Latin America and the Caribbean (223/304). Authors affiliated with United States (561) and United Kingdom (207) institutions together account for a third of publications. Around two thirds of USAID and European Union funded studies had high-income country leads, twice as many as that of Wellcome Trust and Rockefeller Foundation.Conclusions: There are marked gaps in data ownership and these have not diminished over time. Increased locally-led publications, however, does suggest a growing capacity in LMIC institutions to analyse and articulate research findings. Differences in author attribution between funders might signal important variations in funders' expectations of authorship and discrepancies in how funders understand collaboration. More stringent authorship oversight and reconsideration of authorship guidelines could facilitate growth in LMIC leadership. Left unaddressed, deficiencies in research ownership will continue to hinder alignment between the research undertaken and knowledge needs of LMICs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]